CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3237915 (LBO 0375567) ADJ2373677
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

SHERYL WILLIS vs. PINKERTON GOVERNMENT SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration concerning an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). The applicant's attorney sought reconsideration based on an alleged inadvertent miscalculation of attorney fees, claiming a $750 award instead of the requested $900. The Board found the petition lacked statutory basis and failed to establish good cause, noting no allegations of fraud or mutual mistake. Furthermore, the attorney failed to provide required notice to the applicant regarding the adverse interest in seeking increased fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesInadvertent MiscalculationCompromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceDisputed IssuesLabor Code Section 5903Good Cause Showing
References
3
Case No. ADJ10020893
Regular
Aug 21, 2017

TZITZIRI BOLANOS ZACARIAS vs. MARZ FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Zenith Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of a $250 sanction order. The sanction was imposed because Zenith and its attorneys failed to appear at a status conference due to an alleged calendaring error. Zenith argued this was an inadvertent mistake, not bad faith, and requested relief under WCAB Rule 10561. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report that found no reasonable excuse for the failure to appear. One commissioner dissented, believing the sanctions were unjust given the isolated, inadvertent nature of the calendaring error and Zenith's prompt resolution of the underlying issue.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsStatus ConferenceNotice of Intention to SanctionReasonable ExcuseCalendaring ErrorWCAB Rule 10561Labor Code section 5813Bad Faith
References
0
Case No. ADJ3162785
Regular
Sep 29, 2008

MARIA LIMA-PERU vs. FOSTER FARMS

Reconsideration denied for Long Beach Prescription Pharmacy's lien dismissal. Inadvertence in objecting to the NIT does not constitute good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedLien DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissExcusable NeglectCode of Civil Procedure 473(b)Hearing on the MeritsDefault JudgmentProof of ServiceTimeliness of Petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ 871529
Regular
Aug 28, 2008

DAVID PETTYJOHN vs. MILLERICK ENGINEERING, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Reconsideration granted to address miscalculation of applicant's average weekly earnings. WCJ's findings regarding intoxication and serious and willful misconduct affirmed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryForklift OperatorMillerick EngineeringMajestic Insurance CompanyAverage Weekly EarningsAffirmative DefenseIntoxicationSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
5
Case No. ADJ1051150 (OAK 0324388) ADJ2365304 (OAK 0343863)
Regular
Aug 18, 2010

GUSTAVIA PERKINS vs. ALBERTSONS, JC PENNEY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Albertsons' petition for reconsideration as the order compelling arbitration was not a final decision. The Board granted Albertsons' alternative petition for removal to correct an inadvertent omission. Specifically, the Order compelling arbitration, which was initially issued only in case ADJ1051150, was amended to include case ADJ2365304 as well.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5271Labor Code Section 5900Interlocutory OrderPetition for ContributionMandatory ArbitrationCompromise and ReleaseCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ3274679
Regular
Jun 26, 2012

PATCHES CONWAY vs. ARCHITECTURAL ART MANUFACTURER, CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the defendant voluntarily withdrew it. The defendant had initially sought to set aside an Order Approving Compromise and Release, alleging an inadvertent clerical error by the applicant. However, the issue was resolved when the applicant corrected the error and the Appeals Board incorporated the amendments. Therefore, no further action was required on the reconsideration petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseSet Aside OrderInadvertent ErrorClerical ErrorIncorporate by ReferenceDismissed PetitionStatus Conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ2867157 (VNO 0476310) ADJ4292086 (VNO 0470201)
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

TERESA VASQUEZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a clerical error in a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order. The Board inadvertently listed January 21, 2011, as the filing and service date for its December 21, 2011, opinion and orders. The correction order clarifies that the correct filing and service date was indeed December 21, 2011. This amendment is a procedural correction of a minor administrative mistake.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical erroropinion and orderspetitions for reconsiderationremovalfiling and service datecorrect file datecorrect service dateADJ2867157VNO 0476310
References
0
Case No. ADJ7039474
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

BRIAN MURRAY vs. PK MANAGEMENT, LLC dba BORREGO RANCH RESORT AND SPA, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA c/o CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

This case involves applicant Brian Murray and defendants PK Management, LLC, and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendants' Petition for Removal. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding no objection to the applicant's Declaration of Readiness and that a trial date was secured. Any perceived request for continuance was deemed inadvertent and unsupported by substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readinesspre-trial conference statementtrial datecontinuanceMinutes of Hearingverified oppositionWCJAME's deposition
References
0
Case No. ADJ7523126; ADJ8245512
Regular
Feb 24, 2014

SINDIA OCAMPO PEREZ vs. TRI STATE QUALITY STAFFING, LUMBERMENS UNDERWRITING BOCA

Defendant sought reconsideration of an order vacating the dismissal of a lien claim for non-appearance. The Board dismissed the petition as premature, as the vacated order was not a final, appealable decision. Even if treated as a removal petition, it would be denied because the lien was only properly filed in one of the two referenced case numbers. The WCJ's original order vacating dismissal was based on inadvertent dismissal and jurisdictional issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Order Vacating DismissalLien ConferenceReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightsNotice of Lien ConferenceWCABLien Claimant
References
3
Case No. ADJ8920582
Regular
May 20, 2013

DAVID SMITH vs. RMD REBAR, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of an Arbitrator's decision regarding disputed medical treatment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the applicant's initial petition was timely filed but inadvertently lost by the Board. This misplacement tolled the 60-day statutory review period, allowing the Board to now consider the applicant's arguments. The Board intends to obtain an Arbitrator's report and further study the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's Findings And Orderindustrial injurymedical treatmentunreasonably delayunreasonably refusepenaltyattorney fees10859 Order
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 118 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational